Key climate scientist calls out Duke Energy chief, likens tactics to Big Tobacco's
Last week James E. Hansen, one of the nation's leading scientific experts on climate change, publicly released a letter he sent to Jim Rogers, CEO of North Carolina-based Duke Energy. Citing his new study about how climbing atmospheric carbon levels are putting life on earth at risk, Hansen urged Rogers to cancel plans to build new coal-burning power plants in North Carolina and Indiana.Noting that coal accounts for half of fossil fuel-related carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today, Hansen said it can safely be used to generate power in the coming decades only if the carbon dioxide released is captured and sequestered. Plants under construction that lack this sequestration technology -- including Duke's Cliffside and another company facility planned for Edwardsport, Ind. -- are a "terrible, foreseeable waste of money," charged Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
He went on to compare the tactics of Big Coal in fighting climate action to those of Big Tobacco after it became clear that smoking caused serious health problems:
Tobacco companies manufactured and magnified public doubt about scientific evidence; they masqueraded PR as news and expert opinion; they emphasized maintaining "balance" in a "controversy," and they supported doctors and scientists wo disputed the evidence, thus proclaiming concern about discovering the truth while actually suppressing it.Hansen invited Rogers to meet with him for a one-day discussion over the next two or three months with top experts on energy efficiency, renewable energy, carbon capture and nuclear power. Rogers accepted -- though he sounds skeptical the two men will find common ground, the Washington Post reports:Big Tobacco's playbook proved a great "success." Tobacco profits were so great that court settlements could be paid with hardly a blip on stock values. Can it be any wonder that Big Coal and Big Oil have stolen Big Tobacco's playbook?
...Rogers, who praised Hansen as "an early voice in the wilderness" on climate change, said the scientist's demand reflects a "snap-your-fingers, instant transition of the economy" mind-set.
"My requirement is to balance reliability, affordability and clean energy," Rogers said. "He's apparently focused on the clean perspective."
(Hansen photo, top, courtesy of GISS; Rogers photo from Duke Energy Web site)
Labels: Cliffside, climate, coal, Duke Energy, James Hansen, Jim Rogers
1 Comments:
The CEO's coments emphasizing cost made me think about how we value a world free of the threat of global warming. So, here's a very different idea on this debate. Duke Energy has a program that enables consumers to pay extra each month to support renewable energy. In essence, they can buy green power. But they don't. Not in large enough numbers, anyway. So, then this fella here says, well this must be because people don't want to pay for it. BUT, the hard truth is that setting up any program that requires people to opt in face an uphill battle. First, it's hard to get people to notice the options. Second, it's hard to get people off the fence to do it, even if they agree and want to do it. Behavioral economics is an emerging field that has demonstrated this opt-in problem convincingly. The most common example is 401(k) retirement accounts. With an opt-in program, participation rates are downright depressing. But if you set it up as an opt-out program, people pretty much stay in it in staggering numbers. It's all the same cost, but the difference is where the choice has to be made. So, my humble suggestion is that Duke Power seek permission from regulators to default everybody to their green energy program. They could promote it and explain it in advance, heralding their environmental leadership, I am sure. Make it clear that the other option is a new coal plant that will add to our global warming woes. Then, give consumers 6 whole months to opt out--no penalty for doing so and let's see where we are on the question of what consumers are willing to pay for at that point. I bet we would have much less demand for coal and much more green energy.
Post a Comment
Return to Facing South's main page